Coalition sends ‘serious’ petition to FAA

WASHINGTON – On Sept. 22, a coalition of aviation trade associations asked the FAA to fix a seven-letter mistake in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that would create serious headaches for the aviation maintenance industry.

Complying with the section was already difficult, coalition officials noted. By removing the word “serious,” aviation repair stations are effectively required to report everything that comes through the door – if an article did not have a failure, malfunction or defect, it would not need work – an expectation that is unrealistic and inefficient.

The change would impose incalculable cost on both the agency and industry and was made without warning; it was not considered in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to which industry members submitted comments in 2012, coalition officials noted.

The FAA incorrectly claims that “serious” was removed to rectify the word’s “inadvertent” insertion during a previous rulemaking. In fact, the term was deliberately and correctly reinserted as a direct consequence of public comments in 2003, when the agency agreed with industry and acknowledged “it was not FAA’s intent to require [aviation] repair stations to report all failures, malfunctions, and defects.”

“This is why we scrutinize the rules,” said Sarah MacLeod, ARSA’s executive director. “One misplaced or misused word can cause a whole lot of trouble for repair stations, their customers and – in the end – the flying public. It takes work to dissect, apply and chronicle regulations published by the government, but it is one of ARSA’s jobs for the repair station community. The effort paid off and now the agency has the opportunity to quickly make things right.”

In the petition, the coalition urges the FAA to honor its previous rulemaking activity by replacing “serious.” Since it is in the public interest to implement a correction that was fully vetted during a prior comment period, the agency can use its authority under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) to implement a direct final rule without delays required for public notice and comment.

Be a better informed pilot.

Join over 110,000 readers each month and get real-world news and information direct to your inbox, each day.

About General Aviation News Staff

Comments

Oh God, how can the top people at the FAA be so incredibly incompetent? It is exhausting and depressing to keep hearing stories like these of how the FAA and the NTSB keep making decisions that only hurt the US aviation industry and do nothing for safety. They are allowing the rest of the world to take this industry from us. Thanks FAA!

It is time to start thinking seriously about a successor to the FAA. This is not unprecedented, as FAA itself is the successor to the old CAA. CAA was terminated and FAA created when the industry had matured to the point at which CAA’s approach was no longer appropriate. We have surely reached that point with FAA. The safety success of Sport Pilot demonstrates that consensus-based safety assurance works; the fact that an aircraft owner can’t add a new radio to a certified aircraft without daunting expense and crushing delay caused by FAA demonstrates that the current system is broken. In field after field — pilot training and certification, aircraft operations, aircraft certification, UAV authorization — FAA has demonstrated that it cannot function as a credible partner with industry or the larger private sector in the 21st Century. FAA is a relic of the top-down, ossified bureaucratic approach of the last century; we are overdue to envision and implement its successor.

Pilot Guy – Excellent Comment !! But even worse, for nearly two decades, FAA has been led at senior executive levels down to divisions like AFS-400, by people who have little or no “serious” aviation operational experience, no “serious” technical qualification, virtually no fundamental understanding of even their own rules, or where they came from, or why, or their inter-relationship. These well meaning but largely technically illiterate bureaucrats have had virtually no concept of the role of regulation to safety, or what is really in the public interest relative to global aviation and the needs of vehicles and operators from model aircraft and UAVs, to Sport, to BizGA, to transport, to military airspace integration (versus simply catering to consultants, ATS suppliers, or special interests). This has been especially troubling for the lack of leadership in responding to evolving policy and regulatory airspace needs and requirements for NextGen (now already better named PastGen, MisGen, or SpendGen).

From regulatory messes being foisted all over NextGen (like the UAV and ADS-B pending regulatory disasters), to hopelessly fouled up Flight and Duty and F/O qualification regs, to ridiculous revised Hangar use policies, to over-specified and unnecessary Medical constraints, ….now to even fouling up MX related reporting requirements, …it is clear that FAA has simply lost touch with aviation reality, for both safety goals and requirements, as well as any form of rational data driven aviation safety regulation. For example, It took them over 35 years just to get FAR 121.579 for “autopilot use” about “one-half correct”, and that was with 20 years of massive industry help, with even better proposals submitted from industry, that were summarily discarded or ignored by FAA. So is anyone even surprised that they now also got those “seven letters” “SERIOUS” fouled up for Part 145?